CASSOPOLIS MI - ARIAL HARRISON, 2, SUSTAINED MASSIVE INJURIES TO HER FACE AND HEAD ON APRIL 9 WHEN A NEIGHBOR'S LOOSE PIT BULL MAULED HER WHILE PLAYING IN THE YARD AT HER GRANDMOTHER'S HOUSE

My baby girl and her brother got tore up by a dog pls help my baby and her family be here for her she has no ears no top of her head and still asleep and has 5 infections we had a go fund me set up get got 4000 well we had to cash it in to continue to live in Indy with her and to take care of are 3 kids back home pls help my baby and us this is real look at Channel 57 News thank you so much anyone that wants to send flowers Have to be fake Riley's children hospital indy

_______________________________________________________

INDIANAPOLIS -- While little Arial Harrison was in surgery at Riley Hospital for Children Tuesday morning, her distraught parents nervously waited, her father recalling the events of Sunday evening that left his youngest daughter fighting for her life.

"I want to tell the story," Donald Harrison said, to set the record straight.

He said he wants people to know, too, how terribly his daughter was hurt.

One minute his son, Anthony, was jumping playfully with his baby sister, on a trampoline in their grandmother's backyard on Crooked Creek Road in Cassopolis while their grandmother Jennifer Hansford looked on.

The next minute, the family's world was turned upside down when a neighbor's pit bull ran into the yard and jumped onto the trampoline with the children.

The dog bit Anthony, 7, who jumped from the trampoline and ran toward the house. The dog pursued the boy, continuing its attack until Hansford reached them and managed to free the boy, Harrison said.

But while the grandmother ushered Anthony into the house to safety, the dog turned its attack on Arial, 2, who had scrambled down from the trampoline.

Harrison said Hansford ran back and did what she could to protect the child, lying on her as a shield, and suffering several bites as she tried to fend off the dog's attack.

But the damage Ariel sustained was massive, Harrison said.

He choked back tears as he told of the bites the child suffered on her arms, her legs, her hands and her neck, and how the dog narrowly missed Arial's jugular vein.

Most damaged, though, were the child's head and face.

Ariel's ears are gone. So is her scalp.

"She'll never have hair again," he said the doctors told him.

Tuesday's surgery with four teams of doctors in Indianapolis included work to put tubes in Arial's tear ducts and to try to repair her eyelids and the muscles in her torn cheeks so she will be able to blink.

"Their main concerns, though, are keeping her alive," Harrison said from the hospital Tuesday, April 11.

"Right now, she has about 64 different doctors," he said -- plastic surgeons, eye doctors, all kinds.

Arial doesn't have an infection in her lungs yet but her parents have been told that it's possible she will develop one. She will likely be hospitalized for several months and undergo several surgeries, Harrison said.

The ordeal has been overwhelming, and Harrison is angry that it happened.

The dog that attacked Arial has often been seen running loose, and the children's great grandfather, Paul Canen, and neighbors have complained, to no avail, according to Harrison.

The dog's 20-year-old owner, who lives three doors down from the grandparents, has left apologetic messages on Harrison's phone since the incident.

But Harrison was disturbed to read some news accounts that the man may be denying or minimizing his ownership of the animal.

Also, he said, "sorry doesn't change my daughter's face, no one will be able to change that," the result of the man's "lack of responsibility," he said.

Still, his focus, now is on his daughter's own fighting spirit.

It took her father's words to calm her in the first hospital emergency room in South Bend, he said, when she was frantically fighting the doctors.

"Nein," he told her, the German word for "no." It's the word he uses at home to correct his own dog, and one the children have picked up themselves.

(The pit that attacked Arial was named --- "kryptonite")

"I put my hand on her and said: "Nein, baby, you've got let them work on you."

She settled down.

Anthony and his grandmother were released from the hospital after treatment for their injuries.

Arial's medical costs are covered by Medicaid, and her parents are staying nights at the Ronald McDonald House.

Anthony and two other sisters, Aiyana Harrison, 6, and Autumn Jo Harrison, 3, are with relatives.

Although he is on a new job, Harrison said, his employer has told him to do what he must do for his family. For now, both parents, who share custody of their children, plan to stay with Arial as long as recovery takes.

A close friend has set up an online fundraiser to help with the other expenses of travel, meals and the loss of income while both parents are time away from work.

Harrison said he is grateful for the help, and hopeful for his daughter.

He is also hopeful people who hear her story will take more responsibility for their dogs, and not try to blame the attack on the pit bull breed.

"I have a blue nose full blooded pit bull at home that would never show its teeth to my children," Harrison said.

"He is also hopeful people who hear her story will take more responsibility for their dogs, and not try to blame the attack on the pit bull breed.'I have a blue nose full blooded pit bull at home that would never show its teeth to my children,' Harrison said."

The pit bull breed is why this child has no ears and no scalp. The pit bull breed is why this child has 64 DOCTORS! The pit bull breed is why this child was attacked, along with her brother and grandmother because they were playing on a trampoline.

We are not supposed to punish the breed, but punish the deed. How do you punish a deed? Who gets punished? The pit bull, or the owner? The punishment goes to the victims.

The real answer here is Breed Specific Legislation. This father is so ignorant that he excuses the pit bull breed, even though his daughter might die because of one. When I saw that child's face all torn up, I could not believe she was still alive. These are not injuries from a dog bite. It is a typical mauling from a relentless pit bull. The pit bull had THREE victims that day. What part of abnormal do nutters not understand? It is very clear nutters do not recognize abnormal behavior at all.

How many times have we heard, "It's not the pit bull, it's the owner?" Yet, we are still not allowed to go after irresponsible pit bull owners because -pit bull advocates do not want Breed Specific Legislation.

Pit bulls are not "dogs" and should not be treated as such. Responsible pit bull owners should not feel threatened by Breed Specific Legislation. They just don't want it because they really can't tell if their "blue nose full blooded pit bull" would turn on them, their children, or anyone else. They don't want to be held accountable because right now, they can get away with murder by pit bull, and that's fine with them.

THE CODE OF ALABAMA - 1975

Title: 6 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 6-5-120

Defined.

A "nuisance" is anything that works hurt, inconvenience or damage to another. The fact that the act done may otherwise be lawful does not keep it from being a nuisance. The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an ordinary reasonable man.

(Code 1907, §5193; Code 1923, §9271; Code 1940, T. 7, §1081

Section 6-5-121

_____________________

Distinction between public and private nuisances; right of action generally.

Nuisances are either public or private. A public nuisance is one which damages all persons who come within the sphere of its operation, though it may vary in its effects on individuals. A private nuisance is one limited in its injurious effects to one or a few individuals. Generally, a public nuisance gives no right of action to any individual, but must be abated by a process instituted in the name of the state. A private nuisance gives a right of action to the person injured.

Use of force in defense of a person.

(a) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he or she may use a degree of force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary for the purpose. A person may use deadly physical force, and is legally presumed to be justified in using deadly physical force in self-defense or the defense of another person pursuant to subdivision (4), if the person reasonably believes that another person is:

(1) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force.

(2) Using or about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling while committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling.

(3) Committing or about to commit a kidnapping in any degree, assault in the first or second degree, burglary in any degree, robbery in any degree, forcible rape, or forcible sodomy.

(4) In the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or has unlawfully and forcefully entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is in the process of sabotaging or attempting to sabotage a federally licensed nuclear power facility, or is attempting to remove, or has forcefully removed, a person against his or her will from any dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle when the person has a legal right to be there, and provided that the person using the deadly physical force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring. The legal presumption that a person using deadly physical force is justified to do so pursuant to this subdivision does not apply if:

a. The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person;

b. The person sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

c. The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

d. The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his or her official duties.

(b) A person who is justified under subsection (a) in using physical force, including deadly physical force, and who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and is in any place where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a), a person is not justified in using physical force if:

(1) With intent to cause physical injury or death to another person, he or she provoked the use of unlawful physical force by such other person.

(2) He or she was the initial aggressor, except that his or her use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he or she withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her intent to do so, but the latter person nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force.

(3) The physical force involved was the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.

(d) A person who uses force, including deadly physical force, as justified and permitted in this section is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the force was determined to be unlawful.

(e) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force described in subsection (a), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.